A sailor has taped the story of his recent discharge from the Navy and uploaded it to YouTube, where it's racked up nearly 6,000 hits.
In short, having to surrender his cell phone to access a restricted security area, his command discovered pictures of him with his boyfriend. He was summarily dismissed from service.
Who does this policy continue to serve? He makes clear he had support of his immediate supervisors:
"My Captain made it very clear that he didn't care what my orientation was, and that I was still a great sailor and he wanted me on board. But unfortunately it was a little bit higher than what he could do..."
Despite his Captain and his Chief attending his hearing to speak on his behalf and plead for his retention at the separation board, he received a less than honorably discharged, solely on the basis of his sexual orientation.
He identifies himself as Jay Jerry McIntosh (or Macintosh?). His video hit YouTube a week ago and I've been told by Outserve that his investigation discharge did, indeed, come after Secretary Gates, and others have assured us that discharge criteria had been relaxed.
So, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates can talk all he wants about how DADT is now a "kinder, gentler" policy than years past. And Democrats in Congress can declare "Mission Accomplished" until the cows come home.
But propaganda can't obscure facts. And the DOD is still compelled to report statistics of the discharges, I'm sure much to their chagrin.
And unfortunately for those who'd like to say DADT is dead, increasingly, servicemembers are having the courage and the integrity to speak the truth and demand the dignity to serve as equals. I suspect there may be a "Choi effect" in play here.
People like West Point Cadet, Katherine Miller. Miller recently resigned West Point Academy, despite being ranked #9 in her class. In her resignation letter she said:
I have created a heterosexual dating history to recite to fellow cadets when they inquire. I have endured unwanted approaches by male cadets for fear of being accused as a lesbian by rejecting or reporting these events. I have been coerced into ignoring derogatory comments towards homosexuals for fear of being alienated for my viewpoint. In short, I have lied to my classmates and compromised my integrity and my identity by adhering to existing military policy.
While at the academy, I have made a deliberate effort to develop myself academically, physically, and militarily, but in terms of holistic personal growth I have reached a plateau. I am unwilling to suppress an entire portion of my identity any longer because it has taken a significant personal, mental, and social toll on me and detrimentally affected my professional development. I have experienced a relentless cognitive dissonance by attempting to adhere to §654 [colloquially known as "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell"] and retain my integrity, and I am retrospectively convinced that I am unable to live up to the Army Values as long as the policy remains in place.
Servicemember's United has also launched a new initiative, MilitaryReadiness.org. This week they released the first in series of ads giving voice to servicemembers discharged under the policy. The first one features, Brian, with 8 years of service including tours in Bosnia and Afghanistan after 9/11. He concludes with,
"I loved being in the Army, they lost a huge asset by discharging me under 'Don't ask, don't tell.'"
But as long as servicemembers are able, and increasingly, more willing to speak out about the reality of what's really still going on, this draconian policy will remain a thorn in the side of those who wish it would just go away. The servicemembers themselves are calling on Obama - stop firing us. The interest of politics is poorly served by this slow-walk strategy, merely providing more time for this policy to agitate both sides of the debate. The goal has always been about when "Don't ask, don't tell" will end, not just when Congress would vote.
More on "Don't ask, don't tell" on tonight's Rachel Maddow Show. Knights Out, an organization of West Point Alumni, Staff and Faculty who are united in supporting the rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender soldiers to openly serve their country, is saying:
Watch The Rachel Maddow Show tonight on MSNBC, 9pm ET; an Army Captain/Knights Out member will be a special guest on tonight's show. Major DADT news tonight - DON'T MISS IT!
I would highly recommend tuning in for Rachel Maddow's show tonight. There is buzz afoot that something big is about to break on the "Don't ask, don't tell" story. Would any of us be surprised if Rachel was the one to break it?
I would also recommend keeping an eye on headlines in the coming days. OutServe is a good organization on top of things. Outserve's twitter account is here. I have a feeling "very interesting" is going to prove to be very interesting indeed.
:::::::::::::::::::::
Update 1: A producer for MSNBC has tweeted this:
@lanarusso Tune in for #Maddow tonight: Lt. Col. Victor Feherenbach on #DADT #p2
A reminder Victor Fehrenbach is a combat fighter pilot with more than 19 years of combat experience, currently under a DADT discharge investigation. He most recently appeared on the Rachel Maddow show on July 15, 2010.
From her introduction:
Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach has served in the United States Air Force with distinction for almost 19 years. He‘s logged more than 2,000 flying hours and nearly 1,500 fighter hours. He has flown 400 combat hours, including the longest sorties in the history of his squadron. Col. Fehrenbach estimates that the military has spent $25 million training him.
But in 2008, he was outed as a gay man by a civilian. That began the long process of getting fired, or as the Pentagon likes to put it, separated from the military.
Let us hope this is not an announcement he, too, has been fired.
Update 2: This is what Fehrenbach will be discussing, from the New York Times:
On Wednesday, Colonel Fehrenbach’s lawyers filed papers in Idaho federal court requesting a temporary order blocking his discharge. The petition contends that a discharge would violate Colonel Fehrenbach’s rights, cause him irreparable harm and fail to meet standards established in a 2008 federal court ruling on don’t ask, don’t tell.
...
Lawyers for Colonel Fehrenbach assert that his case is among the most egregious applications of the policy in their experience. The Air Force investigation into his sexuality began with a complaint from a civilian that was eventually dismissed by the Idaho police and the local prosecutor as unfounded, according to court papers. Colonel Fehrenbach has never publicly said that he is gay.
Colonel Fehrenbach’s case rests heavily on a 2008 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in which the court ruled that an Air Force major had been improperly discharged. The ruling in the case, Witt vs. Department of the Air Force, said that discharging service members for their sexuality was unconstitutional unless the government showed the discharge was necessary to significantly further an important government interest. The Witt ruling applies only to cases in the Ninth Circuit, which includes Idaho.
More on the "Witt Standard" as it relates to DADT cases in the Ninth Circuit can be found at this post at Pam's House Blend. An excerpt:
Initially, the District court dismissed Maj. Witt's case because, in the Court's opinion, she did not have a valid claim of injury, not yet having been discharged. Her appeal to the 9th Circuit resulted in a precedent that, while not quite earth-shattering, will impact laws affecting LGBT rights for years to come. Previously, the 9th Circuit had ruled against gay servicemembers on a rational basis review, the lowest level of scrutiny. However, since Lawrence was decided in 2003, in its May 21, 2008 decision, the 9th Circuit came down with the following stunning ruling (emphasis mine):
Having carefully considered Lawrence and the arguments of the parties, we hold that Lawrence requires something more than traditional rational basis review and that remand is therefore appropriate...
In these ambiguous circumstances, we analyze Lawrence by considering what the Court actually did, rather than by dissecting isolated pieces of text. In so doing, we conclude that the Supreme Court applied a heightened level of scrutiny in Lawrence.
We cannot reconcile what the Supreme Court did in Lawrence with the minimal protections afforded by traditional rational basis review.
Sadly, the 9th Circuit dismissed Maj. Witt's claims for equal protection, arguing that with regard to LGBT people, the military is exempt from the "strict scrutiny" that protects other minorities from discrimination. However, the Court held that, in light of the heightened scrutiny standard set in Lawrence, that, since the military claims that the presence of openly LGBT servicemembers "undermines unit cohesion," that, essentially, the burden of proof is upon the military to show exactly that. That is the definition of the Witt standard.
Update 3: Courtesy of Joe Sudbay at Americablog, the lawyers among us may want to look at the documents, they are embedded in this post.
Update 4: The Palm Center weighs in, says discharging Fehrenbach without proving he has undermined his unit's readiness, the Pentagon will be violating Federal Law:
SANTA BARBARA, CA - August 9, 2010 - If the Pentagon discharges Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach without showing that he undermined his unit's readiness, this would violate the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Witt v. Department of the Air Force, according to a new report. The 2008 Witt decision holds that gay and lesbian service members cannot be discharged on the basis of the claim that homosexuality generally is detrimental to unit effectiveness. Rather, the Pentagon must show that a service member undermined his or her unit if that individual is to be discharged under "don't ask, don't tell."
Update 5: Well, the Maddow DADT-Palooza is over, and boy was it a barn-burner. No less than three segments, starting with West Point graduate Jonathan Hopkins, discharged just yesterday. An interview with West Point cadet Katie Miller, and wrapping up with Lt Col Fehrenbach. Three people that represent some of the best and brightest veterans and recruits our armed forces could hope for.
Maddow recognized and acknowledged she'll win herself no fans among the administration and many in the Democratic base by placing the focus so squarely on the reality that this policy still lives, and still undermines our national security, and our American values. And she was not easy on the Commander in Chief, pointing out he knows what they right thing to do is, and we all know he knows what the right things to do is. She challenged him to do it. Stop the discharges, end the policy.
It prompted me to tweet this message of thanks.
Thanks to @maddow for the awesome, uncompromising #DADT-palooza tonight!
Time Well past time to get this done.
Update 6:Thanks to JP Massar for embedding the Rachel Maddow Show segments at the bottom of the comment thread. Check them out if you haven't seen them.